Importer Sucden Americas Corp. and the U.S. filed a stipulation of dismissal in a customs suit pertaining to the company's four entries of white refined sugar from Guatemala. The U.S. moved to dismiss the lawsuit in December, arguing that the case must be tossed because the importer didn't protest the liquidation of its entries or the denials of its post-importation preference claims (see 2312110045). As a result, the government said there was no subject-matter jurisdiction in the suit under Section 1581(a) (Sucden Americas Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00228).

A group of steel nail exporters led by PT Enterprise will appeal a February Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's use of a simple average of standard deviations in the denominator of the Cohen's d test in detecting "masked" dumping as part of the antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from Taiwan (see 2402120036). The companies will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the Cohen's d test is being litigated in a lead case, Stupp Corp. v. U.S. The government's central contention in the present case is that Commerce's use of the full population of data precludes it from needing to satisfy statistical assumptions such as the normal variance of data (Mid Continent Steel and Wire v. U.S., CIT # 15-00213).

Three importers said in combined remand comments that CBP was attempting to illegally shift the burden of proof onto them to prove they weren't guilty of evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act (Newtrend USA Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).

The U.S. filed another brief supporting its motion to dismiss a case involving the liquidation of entries that were the subject of a prior disclosure, which it argues the Court of International Trade has no jurisdiction to hear (Larson-Juhl US v. U.S., CIT # 23-00032).

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade said the Commerce Department must file remand results in a Section 232 exclusion request challenge from NLMK Pennsylvania on April 8 "unless the parties have executed a settlement agreement before that date" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT # 21-00507).

DOJ attorney Melissa Patterson withdrew from the massive Section 301 case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a March 1 notice. Patterson, who has worked as an assistant director to the solicitor general since 2019, joined the case in November (see 2311200046) (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

The International Trade Commission shouldn't have sought information about the circulation of phosphate fertilizer already in the market nor expected that circulation to prevent oversupply, two importers said in two March 1 briefs for the Court of International Trade (OCP S.A. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade on March 1 issued a scheduling order in the lawsuit challenging the Commerce Department's pause on antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).